Men Seeking Children Find Only ‘Deadbeat Dad’ Bills

Carl Dick is furious. After years of futile searching for the three daughters his ex-wife spirited away in 1983, he learned that the Orange County Social Services Agency knew where they were for three years but never contacted him.

He finally located his children last year, when the Orange County district attorney’s office filed suit against him as a deadbeat dad. The county is seeking about $8,000 in foster care fees that had piled up after the girls were taken away from his ex-wife in June 1993, Dick’s attorney, David Elder, said.

On the heels of the bill came another letter, this one from the Social Services Agency, warning that it was seeking to sever his parental rights and place the girls with a legal guardian.

Dick, who has since gained custody of his daughters, is suing Orange County in Superior Court for allegedly violating his civil rights and is contesting the foster care bill that he says was created needlessly.

“When they were looking to place my children in a home, they say they didn’t have enough information to locate me,” Dick, 36, of Sonoma said in an interview. “But when they want to bill me for their care, they had no trouble finding me at all. That doesn’t make sense.”

A case of an Orange County man with similar circumstances was heard last month by the California Supreme Court. The decision in that case, expected before the end of the year, could affect Dick and thousands of other fathers in the state who, through no fault of their own, have been declared deadbeat dads by county agencies.

At issue is whether a parent--usually a father--owes child support to a spouse or a government agency if his children have been concealed from him.

“This is one of the biggest national problems we have,” said Dianna Thompson, president of the Southern California chapter of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. “I get calls on a daily basis from people saying, ‘My wife took off, took my kids, and I don’t know where they are.’ ”

About one-third of the group’s calls for help are from fathers desperate to find the children that their spouses or ex-spouses have concealed from them, Thompson said. Some are out of contact for short periods, but others, like Carl Dick, lose touch for years.

“I had one father whose ex moved out of state, changed her name and the children’s name and applied for welfare,” Thompson said. “The only way this guy knew his kids were alive and well is that he finally got a bill from the other state” seeking reimbursement for welfare payments.

Said John Nazarowski of the advocacy group United Fathers of America: “This is so outstandingly common--mom just takes off, doesn’t say anything, doesn’t tell anybody and the next thing you know the dad gets a bill from the D.A.

“I think every father should maintain his obligation to his children,” Nazarowski said. “But at the same time he deserves the right to know where they are at all times.”

In Dick’s case, Orange County prosecutors say that under state law, they have no choice but to take him to court over the foster care expenses, although they maintain no final sum has yet been determined.

“We are . . . obliged to seek reimbursement in all cases where there’s a noncustodial parent,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven Hittleman. “As much as we feel sympathy for Mr. Dick and his situation, we are obliged to get that money back for the taxpayers.”

Social Services Agency Director Larry Leaman said he was not familiar with Dick’s case. However, he said that the agency conducts an extensive search for relatives when children are first taken into custody and again if they are to be put up for adoption or into legal guardianship.

“I can never say the system bats 1,000%, but every logical routine and source of information is part of the check process,” Leaman said. “It sounds like we ultimately did find him--but he’s saying we found him too late.”

Courts have ruled that parents who conceal their children forfeit their right to child support. But the courts have yet to determine whether a public agency can collect reimbursement for welfare or foster care from a parent who has no idea where his or her children are.

In the case before the state Supreme Court, both the mother and the state of Arizona, where she lives, are seeking back child support and welfare reimbursement. So far, the father, George Comer of Fullerton, has prevailed at both the trial and appeals court levels.

“The most the court has done is in the Comer appellate case, and it found that the mother’s right to child support was tainted so she gave a tainted right to the county” to seek welfare reimbursement, said Comer’s attorney, Laurie Michelena-Erickson.

If the Supreme Court reverses the lower courts’ decision, Comer, who had no contact with his children for eight years, would be liable for $70,000, Michelena-Erickson said.

“What I have a problem with is the lack of effort to find the father at the time the money is disbursed,” she said. “I think this is the plight that’s never heard. Instead, they’re always called ‘deadbeat dads.’ ”

Legal experts are hoping the Supreme Court clarifies several major points with the Comer decision:

The first is whether a public agency’s right to reimbursement can be weakened because the children were hidden and the father could not make direct payments. The second is whether the father should be required to pay delinquent child support, even if his children have been hidden from him and the children are still minors.

Also, how much of an effort is required by fathers to find their children? No standard of due diligence exists right now.

Orange County prosecutors say they hope the Supreme Court will remand the Comer case back to the county for a new trial so the particulars of each parent’s behavior can be examined.

But prosecutors say their focus is not on how badly the parents have treated one another.

“Our interest is in the child,” said Hittleman, who handles cases involving nonpayment of child support. “It’s to see if the children are being adequately supported. Is [the father] providing support for these children? If he’s not, is there a court order? Are there arrears? Do we need to establish a court order to collect them? That’s what we want to know.”

When Dick’s wife disappeared in 1983, he and Denise Dick had been married for two years. Together they had three daughters. After Denise Dick brought their children to California, Carl Dick spent the next 11 years searching for them.

Denise Dick hooked up with a new boyfriend, Donald Tutor, and, according to court papers, lived a desperate, impoverished existence, rooming in motels, allegedly taking drugs and dabbling in crime. She and Tutor also had two children together, court records show.

In 1990, after moving to Los Angeles County, Denise Dick’s children were taken away by the Los Angeles County Social Services Agency but later returned to her. Three years later, following a move to Orange County, she and Tutor were arrested on suspicion of burglary and the children were taken into protective custody, according to court records. She and Tutor had taken them along on a burglary, court records show.

Denise Dick moved to Arizona following her release from jail and has not been heard from since.

The children were placed in foster homes.

Though the Orange County Social Services Agency typically conducts an absent parent search before placing children in foster care, Juvenile Court records indicate that no one looked for Carl Dick because social workers did not have his driver’s license or Social Security number.

Elder, Dick’s attorney, points out that his client has had a valid California driver’s license since 1990 and is one of only two men in the state with the same name. Also, Dick paid both federal and state income taxes.

“If they wanted to find him, they could have,” Elder said. “Just as an exercise, I had a private investigator do a search for Carl, and the only information I gave was his name. You know how long it took to find Carl? Ten minutes.”